On 2017-02-18 02:21:29 +0000, Stijn De Jong said:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:00:11 -0800, sms wrote:

Those maps don't really show the coverage holes, nor are they
up-to-date. I.e. Verizon just put in a tower right next to Cupertino
City Hall (a fake tree) that has improved coverage.

I completly understand that the data I showed (which implied that the
coverage was about the same) could be bad data.

But you have to realize I've heard a lot of bs on the net where people who
have one brand think it's better than the other two brands (of anything),
even though they, themselves, have never even tested brand B or C. (It just
happened on the digital photo group, for example, where people said
"preview" was better at X than Paint.NET and then we find out that all
those people who said that had NEVER even used Paint.NET once in their
entire lives).

Boy! You misrepresent the content of a thread and what folks actually
wrote too much.

Did you actually think that I wouldn't challenge what you wrote above?

As I said in rec.photo.digital, I never used the words "better" or
"best" with regard to Preview. I did say that it met my needs for
simple annotation work, including what you claimed was tough to
achieve, "curved arrows". I even provided examples.

I didn't say that I had never used Paint.Net, but since I don't use a
Windows machine I guess you could imply that. Other than that
implication the paragraph above is a twisted rendition of the truth.
Perhaps, a part of your alternate reality.


--
Regards,

Savageduck